The Science Of Stupidity.

[cultsmash]

22 hours ago, beecee said:

Seems you have a left wing bee in your bonnet.

Let me just say that the right to free speech in any reasonable democratic society, does not include irresponsible, untrue nonsense as statements of facts, that may or may not harm others...( eg: the moron Trump, telling people to take disinfectant or similar to kill coronavirus) not does it give any one that choses to practise your free speech, the right to vilify or marginalize other minorities of society like those of the opposite sex, gays, transgenders, different religious persuasions  etc etc. 

If that's your view of free spech, then go shove it up your clacker.

Voltaire said words to the effect , "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" beecee adds to that, "but every individual must be responsible for the consequences of what he says"

 

  It says below your username that you are a genius.  From what you say, I see no evidence of that.  For what I have to say, I have no equal.  Keep that in mind if you reply to me again.  Also, in my first reply I brought up the meme by Voltaire that said, "The right to free speech is more important than the content of that speech."  I pointed out that Voltaire may not have said that.

  You also brought up something that I have had at least a couple people bring up at other forums.  Which is being responsible for the consequences of what I say.  It is not I who must suffer the consequences of what I say but others.  Because for the topics I do speak of, I speak the truth to the best of my ability to do so.  Over and over and over again I have told people that if they disagree with anything I said, just tell me what it is and why.  Being unable to do that, they banned me instead.

  I will tell you something now.  You can believe me later.  The reality of existence is what it is.  It isn't what you would like it to be.  (Cult)  You brought up things such as minorities, gays, different religions, etc.  For just about everything you think is true, the opposite is in fact the case.  How do you like that fact Mr Genius.  There could be 100 of the absolutely smartest people on the planet on this forum.  If they dared go against what I might say, I would slap them around like the worms that they in fact are.

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And you've distilled them all down to a few remarks that fit your worldview, yes, we get it. You so great.

Discussion should be interesting, though. Do you think this prejudice of yours is interesting?

 

  How about sticking to the point.  Of what I posted, I asked people here to point out what the filthiest of the apparently filthy memes I posted was.  Do so.  You also bring up prejudice.  In case you don't know, that word means to pre judge.  I don't pre judge anything.  I consider it, then I judge it.  The interesting part comes into play when you try to disagree with what I have judged to be true.

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

For what I have to say, I have no equal.  Keep that in mind if you reply to me again. 

Apologies Mr. Bonaparte. A pox upon me for a clumsy lout.

[cultsmash]

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Did you have something to say ?

I'm sorry, could you speak up a bit please, the adverts on your post seem to be drowning out whatever it is you want to say.

 

  Basically, what I was trying to say is that the vast majority of people out there are stupid.  In most cases, not because that is what they are.  But because that is what they have been created to be.  Worse yet, that is the way they prefer it.  After all, they do say, "Ignorance is bliss."  There is a scientific definition for this cult.  It is called Mental Illness.

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

On your very first post in this forum you insult us?!?! Stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

  Did I say something you think is untrue?  Tell me what it is and why.

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

 You are wrong. 

Really? What is the phrasing of the document that guarantees you right to free speech here in the US?

 

 

[cultsmash]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you also arrive to a friends house when they invite you over for dinner, proudly proclaim how you’ve had dinner everywhere and bemoan their menu selection, then start shitting on their carpet and pissing on the furniture and condemning them for not decorating the exact same way you would?

 

  I said what I said.  Am I supposed to assume that just because this a science forum that it would be different than any other?  Using your metaphor, what If I was "invited" over to the house of a member of the mafia.  And every forum I have ever been to, with the exception of maybe one, are also homes of a mafia member.  Am I supposed to not say I am against crime there?  Against things like bribery, extortion, robbery, rape, prostitution, drug dealing, etc.?

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

  It says below your username that you are a genius.  From what you say, I see no evidence of that. 

No not at all, you are actually being rather silly, in equating the number of afirmative ticks, to a forum ranking. And of course what you see no evidence of, is your problem, not mine.

14 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

  For what I have to say, I have no equal.  Keep that in mind

I will do my best. 😅

17 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

 "The right to free speech is more important than the content of that speech."  I pointed out that Voltaire may not have said that.

 but beecee added to that but each must be responsible for what he says and the consequences. Plus of course....“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
― Brian Cox

20 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

  I will tell you something now.  You can believe me later. 

No, actually I'm ignoring the rest of your rhetoric, and I'll dismiss all of what you have to say, as your manner and arrogance, speaks for itself.

1.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the things they read (or watch, or listen to, or taste, or whatever). They’re also entitled to express them online.

2. Sometimes those opinions will be ones you don’t like.

3. Sometimes those opinions won’t be very nice.

4. The people expressing those may be (but are not always) assholes.

5. However, if your solution to this “problem” is to vex, annoy, threaten or harrass them, you are almost certainly a bigger asshole.

6. You may also be twelve.

7. You are not responsible for anyone else’s actions or karma, but you are responsible for your own.

8. So leave them alone and go about your own life."

[Bad Reviews: I Can Handle Them, and So Should You (Blog post, July 17, 2012)]”
― John Scalzi

 

18 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

  Basically, what I was trying to say is that the vast majority of people out there are stupid.  In most cases, not because that is what they are.  But because that is what they have been created to be.  Worse yet, that is the way they prefer it.  After all, they do say, "Ignorance is bliss."  There is a scientific definition for this cult.  It is called Mental Illness.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.......

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

It says below your username that you are a genius.  From what you say, I see no evidence of that

That’s a title bestowed by the forum software, just as you are currently designated as a lepton. Try not to be an ass.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

Did I say something you think is untrue? 

You said something that was insulting. Pay attention Your Highness. 

[cultsmash]

20 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

@cultsmash -

There is a big difference between truth and truisms - I see little of the former, lots and lots of the latter.

What hasn't been demonstrated is any deliberate or systematic denial of freedom of speech. So far no-one here has prevented you saying anything, nor prevent others from disagreeing with you - although if the unprovoked insults keep coming (this forum has rules you are expected to abide by) and the discussion goes downhill far enough you might have to freely say things somewhere else.

I expect people here will honestly and sincerely and freely (sometimes quite passionately) discuss and debate the benefits, harms, limits etc of free speech if that is what you want. Is that what you want? If you want everyone to agree with you - you won't get it.

I personally draw the line at wishing people I disagree with harmed or dead and I avoid crude and gratuitous insults but will criticise freely where I think appropriate - freedom of speech means you have to put up with people disagreeing with you.

 

  What makes this forum any different from any other.  At just about any other forum I have been to, truth isn't allowed.  I expect the same here.  As far as freedom of speech goes, that isn't the real problem.  It is the unwillingness of forums to allow the TRUTH to be spoken.  Lastly, I don't care if people disagree with me.  In fact, I welcome it.  As long as it is an honest disagreement.  But what I usually receive instead are insults.  If my first thread was offensive, there is good reason for it.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, cultsmash said:

 

  What makes this forum any different from any other.  At just about any other forum I have been to, truth isn't allowed.  I expect the same here.  As far as freedom of speech goes, that isn't the real problem.  It is the unwillingness of forums to allow the TRUTH to be spoken.  Lastly, I don't care if people disagree with me.  In fact, I welcome it.  As long as it is an honest disagreement.  But what I usually receive instead are insults.  If my first thread was offensive, there is good reason for it.

“Indeed, an astoundingly small proportion of arguments ‘for free speech’ and ‘against censorship’ or ‘banning’ are, in fact, about free speech, censorship or banning. It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very f-cking complicated. Cry “free speech” in such contexts, you are demanding the right to speak any bilge you wish without apology or fear of comeback. You are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about and criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy? This assertive & idiotic failure to understand that juridical permissibility backed up by the state is not the horizon of politics or morality is absurdly resilient.”
― China Miéville

[cultsmash]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

The right of freedom of speech involves the government. This forum isn’t run by any government, so it’s a non-issue.

You are visiting a place that belongs to someone else. You are a guest here. Limitations on your speech are well within the authority of those who run this place.

And, of course, disagreement in no way infringes on your right, and neither does being held accountable by others for what you say.

 

  By the way.  I was here before.  My username was cultsmasher.  I don't think I was banned.  I just forgot my password or what email address I used.  If I was banned before, you could either give me a second chance or ban me again.  If I wasn't banned, could you change my username to cultsmasher?  It is a name dreaded at just about every forum out there.

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Obligatory xkcd reference 

 

FREE SPEECH

 

  You probably saw the meme by George Washington about freedom of speech.  Today we have the internet.  It shouldn't be used as a go around for how George Washington felt.  Also, nobody has to read anything I say.  In fact, seeing how they are most likely worms, I would prefer that they not.  As for criticism or consequences, I don't fear it.  Don't insult me.  If you disagree with what I say, tell me what it is and why.  But being proven wrong, they usually resort to insults.  Why?  Because assholes think telling the truth is bad.

 

 

12 hours ago, exchemist said:

Strange. What's all this about the supposed absence of free speech? Have you had some personal crank theory rejected, or something?   

 

  With the exception of one forum to some degree, I have never found freedom of speech at any forum.  Because they are owned and operated by the mentally ill.  To an insane person, a sane person would seem insane.  I speak the truth.  But to the brainwashed........

 

 

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Fixed that for you

 

Some stupidity.  That doesn't surprise me.  Care to tell me what it is I said that you think is bullshit?

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, cultsmash said:

With the exception of one forum to some degree, I have never found freedom of speech at any forum.  Because they are owned and operated by the mentally ill.

!

Moderator Note

OK, that's all for you here.

 

[cultsmash]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

Really? What is the phrasing of the document that guarantees you right to free speech here in the US?

 

 

 

  Morality doesn't require any document.  Now if you want to talk about law, try this.

 

 

[Ken Fabian]

Truisms. They sound so right... yet can be so wrong; most people operate within the law because there are legal and social consequences to breaking laws aka behave badly. "Bad people" don't always find ways around the law. It may be imperfect but the rule of law has been profoundly beneficial. I think we have laws because people are more likely to be cautious of consequences than be good.

Going by Plato's truism there would be no point to the rule of law - although I'm sure he had more to say about law and governance, with more nuance.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Truisms. They sound so right... yet can be so wrong; most people operate within the law because there are legal and social consequences to breaking laws aka behave badly. "Bad people" don't always find ways around the law. It may be imperfect but the rule of law has been profoundly beneficial. I think we have laws because people are more likely to be cautious of consequences than be good.

Going by Plato's truism there would be no point to the rule of law - although I'm sure he had more to say about law and governance, with more nuance.

I agree, but another crucial point about laws is that they represents a common, agreed standard by which conduct can be judged by the community. Laws remove the arbitrary element in deciding whether conduct is acceptable and thereby enable consistency and fairness - which in the end stops us all fighting one another in private disputes.  

[joigus]

Give us a quote from your famous avatar, that great philosopher-scientist.

Edited February 16, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[joigus]

Sorry. I hadn't noticed that the user had already been banned when I wrote my last comment.

[Agent Smith]

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want.

In other words there's a difference between speech & action. Why else the lack of consensus on these two?

Thought ➡️ Speech ➡️ Action.

Thought police: A big no-no!

Speech police: Yeah/No/May be!

Action police: Yes! Absolutely!

It is as expected! Oui? 

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Agent Smith said:

but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want.

Somewhere between a quarter and three quarters of the world's population suffer this.

[Agent Smith]

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want.

In other words there's a difference between speech & action. Why else the lack of consensus on these two?

Thought ➡️ Speech ➡️ Action.

Thought police: A big no-no!

Speech police: Yeah/No/May be!

Action police: Yes! Absolutely!

It is as expected! Oui? 

 

Shriek doin' her thing! ⬇️

https://youtu.be/zulYWSjrqb0

How do I post videos?

Edited February 17, 2022 by Agent Smith

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Somewhere between a quarter and three quarters of the world's population suffer this.

Including the Western world where you cannot yell "Fire!", slander someone, or praise Nazis.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

or praise Nazis.

You mean I can't blow my own trumpet ?

But Zap, I love Daleks.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want.

You have to clarify "can't say whatever you want"

Is that because of legal repercussions, or social repercussions?

i.e. if you say it you will go to jail, or be sued, or you say it and people will hold you to account and possibly shun you? 

In any event, I think that quite a lot of people would agree that you can't say whatever you want. There are some things that you say that would have one of those forms of response.

AFAICT the disagreement is where the line is drawn, rather than adhering to the absolute.

[Agent Smith]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You have to clarify "can't say whatever you want"

That would be censorship.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

i.e. if you say it you will go to jail, or be sued, or you say it and people will hold you to account and possibly shun you? 

In most cases, censorship is accompanied by some form of legal action (e.g. incarceration).

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In any event, I think that quite a lot of people would agree that you can't say whatever you want.

Then censorship should have more appeal than it does.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Agent Smith said:

That would be censorship.

In most cases, censorship is accompanied by some form of legal action (e.g. incarceration).

Then censorship should have more appeal than it does.

 

9 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want.

 

Why don't you just clarify your originally ambiguous statement ?

Who are the few and what do they agree with ?